AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs AMD Radeon R9 M295X Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 records an average benchmark score of 32540, while the AMD Radeon R9 M295X records 28580. The FirePro S9300 X2 sits at the 77th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the R9 M295X sits at the 74th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro S9300 X2 scores 27971 against 22858 for the R9 M295X, a 22.4% advantage for the FirePro card.

Q: Is there any test where the R9 M295X wins?

A: No. Across the shared head-to-head benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan), the FirePro S9300 X2 wins both. The R9 M295X does have a Geekbench Metal score of 33790, but the FirePro S9300 X2 has no Metal result recorded, so no direct comparison exists in that API.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 uses 8,900 million transistors on a 596 mm² die, while the R9 M295X uses 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die. Both are built on TSMC's 28 nm process.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4096 shading units, exactly double the 2048 shading units found on the R9 M295X. The FirePro also has double the texture mapping units (256 vs 128) and double the ROPs (64 vs 32).

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the GCN 3.0 architecture and are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but they are fundamentally different implementations. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses the Capsaicin chip, a massive server-oriented design that spans 596 mm² and integrates 8,900 million transistors. The R9 M295X uses the Amethyst chip, a much smaller 366 mm² die with 5,000 million transistors. Transistor density favors the larger chip slightly: 14.9M per mm² versus 13.7M per mm².

The memory subsystems could hardly be more different. The FirePro S9300 X2 pairs its 4 GB frame buffer with HBM on a 4096-bit interface, yielding 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M295X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s. That is a 3.2x bandwidth advantage for the FirePro, which directly feeds its much higher compute throughput.

The FirePro S9300 X2 is a dual-slot server card with 2x 8-pin power connectors and a 300 W TDP, requiring a 700 W power supply. It has no display outputs, confirming its role as a compute-only accelerator. The R9 M295X is an MXM module with no external power connectors and a 250 W TDP, designed for portable or all-in-one systems. Its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by the host laptop.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R9 M295X additionally records a Geekbench Metal score of 33790, while the FirePro S9300 X2 has no Metal benchmark listed. The R9 M295X also lists FP16 throughput at 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1 with FP32), while the FirePro S9300 X2 lists FP32 at 7.987 TFLOPS with no FP16 figure provided.

Production status for both is end-of-life. The FirePro S9300 X2 launched on 2016-03-30 with a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD. The R9 M295X launched earlier, on 2014-11-22, with no launch MSRP recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The shared benchmark suite consists of two tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The FirePro S9300 X2 wins both, giving it a clean 2-0 record against the R9 M295X.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro S9300 X2 scores 27971 versus 22858 for the R9 M295X. That is a 22.4% delta. This margin is consistent with the raw compute specifications: the FirePro delivers 7.987 TFLOPS of FP32 against 2.961 TFLOPS, a 2.7x raw throughput advantage. The OpenCL score gap is smaller than the raw FLOP gap, which suggests that the R9 M295X extracts more efficiency per shader in this workload, or that the FirePro's HBM bandwidth is not fully saturated by the test. Still, the FirePro leads by a comfortable margin.

The Vulkan test shows a wider gap. The FirePro S9300 X2 scores 37109 against 29091 for the R9 M295X, a 27.6% delta. Vulkan's lower-level API tends to reward raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth, both of which favor the FirePro. The 512.0 GB/s HBM bandwidth versus 160.0 GB/s GDDR5 is likely the deciding factor here, as Vulkan workloads often stress memory access patterns more than OpenCL compute kernels.

For context, the FirePro S9300 X2's average score of 32540 places it within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME (32601) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE (32456). The R9 M295X's average of 28580 puts it 0.6% behind the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 (28421) and 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28996). In other words, the FirePro competes with modern desktop cards despite its server origins, while the R9 M295X sits in the company of mid-range desktop GPUs from several generations ago.

The R9 M295X's best recorded result is its Metal score of 33790, which exceeds both of its OpenCL and Vulkan scores. However, since the FirePro S9300 X2 has no Metal benchmark in the database, this result cannot be used for a head-to-head comparison.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses the Capsaicin chip; the R9 M295X uses Amethyst. Both are GCN 3.0, but the FirePro is in the FirePro Server (Sx300) generation while the R9 M295X is in the Gem System (R9 M200) generation.

Transistor count: 8,900 million versus 5,000 million. Die size: 596 mm² versus 366 mm². Transistor density: 14.9M / mm² versus 13.7M / mm². Memory clock: 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective) versus 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Memory type: HBM versus GDDR5. Bus width: 4096 bit versus 256 bit. Bandwidth: 512.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s.

Compute resources: 4096 shading units versus 2048; 256 TMUs versus 128; 64 ROPs versus 32. Pixel rate: 62.40 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 249.6 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s. FP32: 7.987 TFLOPS versus 2.961 TFLOPS. The R9 M295X lists FP16 at 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1), while the FirePro S9300 X2 has no FP16 figure.

Power and form factor: 300 W TDP, dual-slot, 2x 8-pin, 700 W suggested PSU, PCIe 3.0 x16, no display outputs for the FirePro. The R9 M295X is 250 W, MXM Module, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, MXM-B (3.0) interface, portable-device-dependent outputs.

Dimensions: the FirePro S9300 X2 is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high. The R9 M295X has no dimensions recorded.

Release dates: 2016-03-30 for the FirePro, 2014-11-22 for the R9 M295X. Launch MSRP: 5,999 USD for the FirePro, none recorded for the R9 M295X.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The FirePro S9300 X2 wins both shared benchmarks with double-digit margins (22.4% in OpenCL, 27.6% in Vulkan) and holds a higher average score (32540 versus 28580) and a higher percentile ranking (77 versus 74). It also has overwhelming advantages in raw specifications: double the shading units, double the TMUs, double the ROPs, 2.7x the FP32 throughput, and 3.2x the memory bandwidth.

The R9 M295X is not without merit. It delivers a strong Metal score of 33790, which is its best result and higher than either of its other recorded scores. It also achieves its performance at a lower 250 W TDP versus 300 W, and its MXM form factor means it can fit into laptops or compact systems where the FirePro's dual-slot, 267 mm server card cannot go.

But if the question is which GPU is faster in compute workloads, the answer is unambiguous: the FirePro S9300 X2. Its nearest rivals in the database are modern desktop cards like the RX 590 GME and RX 7900 GRE, while the R9 M295X sits alongside desktop GPUs like the RX 570 and RX 470. The FirePro is a server accelerator with no display outputs, so it is only suitable for compute nodes. The R9 M295X is a mobile part, suitable for high-end laptops from its era.

For a server or workstation compute workload where OpenCL or Vulkan performance matters, the FirePro S9300 X2 is the stronger choice by every recorded metric. For a portable system where the card must be an MXM module and Metal compatibility matters, the R9 M295X is the only one of the two that fits.

Where Each One Wins

AMD FirePro S9300 X2 wins in: OpenCL compute (27971 versus 22858, 22.4% ahead), Vulkan compute (37109 versus 29091, 27.6% ahead), raw FP32 throughput (7.987 TFLOPS versus 2.961 TFLOPS), memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s), pixel fill rate (62.40 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s), texture fill rate (249.6 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s), shading units (4096 versus 2048), TMUs (256 versus 128), ROPs (64 versus 32), and overall average benchmark score (32540 versus 28580).

AMD Radeon R9 M295X wins in: Metal benchmark score (33790, which the FirePro cannot contest as it has no Metal result), power efficiency per watt (250 W TDP versus 300 W for a much lower performance envelope), form factor flexibility (MXM module versus dual-slot server card), display output support (portable-device-dependent versus no outputs), and FP16 capability (2.961 TFLOPS listed versus no FP16 figure for the FirePro).

The practical takeaway: the FirePro S9300 X2 is a compute accelerator that should be chosen when maximum OpenCL or Vulkan throughput is required in a server chassis with a 700 W PSU and no need for video output. The R9 M295X is the only choice when the target system is a laptop or compact MXM-based machine, and it has the added benefit of Metal support for Apple-ecosystem workloads. Neither card is current, both are end-of-life, but for raw compute the FirePro S9300 X2 is the decisive winner in every shared test.